pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Emre Hasegeli <emre@hasegeli.com>
Cc: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Cc: Matthias Kurz <m.kurz@irregular.at>
Cc: Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com>
Cc: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Alter or rename enum value
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 16:19:30 -0400
Message-ID: <17893.1473193170@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <9dd58b5f-0447-54fe-02f4-afb62fd7c3c8@dunslane.net >
References: <CAO=2mx6uvgPaPDf-rHqG8=1MZnGyVDMQeh8zS4euRyyg4D35OQ@mail.gmail.com >
<56E049CC.8010201@dunslane.net >
<25605.1457539654@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<56E05635.70908@dunslane.net >
<28167.1457543612@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CAO=2mx4rQHRvifT2yUQ1rz90A=9CVz4_Z0Sx1wTgwgQRzAimpQ@mail.gmail.com >
<CAO=2mx6rK_h4BC7y+3Nu-8fuZJXdFjd9FE_MZnzkH+vnMp0C-Q@mail.gmail.com >
<d8ja8ln7nl0.fsf@dalvik.ping.uio.no >
<d8jk2kn4yn0.fsf_-_@dalvik.ping.uio.no >
<d8jeg5m4as8.fsf@dalvik.ping.uio.no >
<CAE2gYzxo4bB_uQDafQYoGx=WmUrO-NFUbKBYfu4j_=LfaaUzFg@mail.gmail.com >
<d8jy43m2wow.fsf@dalvik.ping.uio.no >
<CAE2gYzy9fWFmMgnA0DstcGdtuFv40d3JXgtikE-ywtZ2qow=ng@mail.gmail.com >
<26875.1472935684@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CAE2gYzzoWnzmz3MhiSr_49Mjjah4KXju-N81Bjc9p95-YcxpcA@mail.gmail.com >
<32710.1473099022@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<CA+Tgmoaz9OSD1Zbf4kMfEDV8OMGM6x2=kWxAxd1XPCfTWW1f8Q@mail.gmail.com >
<8384.1473186627@sss.pgh.pa.us >
<9dd58b5f-0447-54fe-02f4-afb62fd7c3c8@dunslane.net >
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Are we also going to have an exists test for the original thing being
> renamed? Exists tests on renames do strike me as somewhat cumbersome, to
> say the least.
I'm less opposed to that part, because it's at least got *some* precedent
in existing RENAME features. But the fact that RENAME COLUMN hasn't got
it still makes me wonder why this is the first place that's getting it
("it" being an EXISTS test that applies to a sub-object rather than the
whole object being ALTER'd).
Bottom line here is that I'd rather commit ALTER TYPE RENAME VALUE with
no EXISTS features and then see it accrete those features together with
other types of RENAME, when and if there's a will to make that happen.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
view thread (56+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <17893.1473193170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink: ../17893.1473193170@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/17893.1473193170@sss.pgh.pa.us
copy link · copy postgr.es
reply Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@dunslane.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, emre@hasegeli.com, ilmari@ilmari.org, m.kurz@irregular.at, Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com, david.g.johnston@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Alter or rename enum value
In-Reply-To: <17893.1473193170@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox